Nauman (recluze) on computing, philosophy and more …

Fedora Core 5 -vs- Windows XP

It took me a year but I’ve finally moved my stuff over to Linux. I had to. I’m supposed to be a geek.

It’s like moving into a new city. You don’t know where to get the groceries, how to get around. Stuff that sounds trivial where you’ve spent your whole life. Despite the problems, i’ve managed to set up shop in linux. I’ve got almost everything ready. Graphics editting, lisp programming, internet.

Moving away from internet explorer to firefox was easy. There are problems in linux but I think they’re manageable.

Post navigation

3 thoughts on “Fedora Core 5 -vs- Windows XP”

As i talked about the expense of Linux and windows in class so below is the detailed information about that.Kindly reply me your comments bout.

“Until recently, if you wanted to find someone who thought that a Windows-based program was cheaper than one based on Linux, you had to go all the way to Redmond. No more. Not since Microsoft paid Giga Research to conduct a comparative study of the costs of developing a Web-based portal. Now you can go to Santa Clara, where Giga vice president John Rymer can explain in detail the cost saving benefits of Microsoft. ”

The study compared the costs incurred by five large and medium-size companies that used the J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) with costs incurred by seven large and medium-size companies that used .Net applications. The savings are impressive. For large corporations, the cost of using Microsoft products for development and deployment plus three years of maintenance was 28 percent less than the cost for J2EE/Linux. And for medium-size companies, the Microsoft route was 25 percent cheaper.

Of course, it’s not shocking that a study commissioned by Microsoft should demonstrate the advantages of that company’s products over Linux, but the fact that the study was commissioned at all is revealing of the big company’s concern. The popularity of Linux—fueled by fear of placing too much control in the hands of a single (notoriously aggressive) vendor and by the widespread conviction that open source software can save you a bucket of money—is rising like the waters of the flood toward the software fortress that Gates built. IDC, a sister company to CXO Media, recently reported that sales of Linux servers now exceed those of Windows servers, and Gartner tells us that while the sale of servers running Windows is up 30 percent this year over last, the sale of Intel servers running Linux is up nearly 60 percent in that same time frame. In short, it’s a very good time for Bill Gates to pull out his checkbook and order up some market research.

Rymer and co-researcher Bob Cormier explain that the study intended, among other things, to inject some rational thought into the emotional debate between Linux-leaning ideologues and the rest of the world. In fact, the most interesting thing the report demonstrates is that the ideological battle over Linux is moot: Like those “rebellious” presidential candidates who admit that they inhaled, Linux is now a major part of the establishment. Take a look: The Giga study found that the biggest cost advantages of Microsoft products came in comparison to the cost of Linux-based products sold by monster software makers Oracle and BEA. According to the study, large corporations paid $80,000 for Oracle’s database, compared to less than $40,000 for Microsoft SQL; and they paid $60,000 to BEA for development tools, compared to $12,500 to Microsoft VisualStudio.net. Medium-size companies, the study found, enjoyed a savings of the same proportions.

What would the cost savings look like if the companies that paid big bucks to Oracle and BEA had used free Linux-based databases and scripting tools such as PHP and MySQL? Giga doesn’t know, because, as Cormier explains, they didn’t look at any such companies. Cormier says that Giga, not Microsoft, decided which companies to look at.

In the spirit of fairness, the study does point out that it examined only the cost of Web portal applications using Linux and Windows, and that similar cost benefit analyses of more sophisticated applications may favor Linux.

Perhaps they would. What do you think? How much would free databases and scripting tools have saved? Which applications are better off running Linux? Tell me what you think.

Zakir, you seem to have missed one very important point here. They’ve studies costs of linux running Oracle! Oracle is very expensive but is not a part of linux. As the article itself declares, the costs would’ve been much lower if they studies mySQL or another linux native solution.

I saw this study, I saw another one comparing RedHat Enterprise Linux to Windows, but their not comparing the Free versions of Linux to Windows, but again why on earth would Microsoft ever pay for anyone to compare free software to their software.

I personally advocate Linux for Desktop use as well, the biggest hurtle with getting most people on Linux is their hardware, specifically Printers, Scanners, Webcams, and other USB based peripherals. I’m waiting on the Microsoft Consumer Compatibility report.